The thing is, TC, that the foil that is finally adopted by each Team will 100% reflect the degree of refinement of their control system. That was an interesting picture of the curved foil on BAR-heard any more about it? The "open" "L" on Oracle is known to be pretty unstable compared to an uptip foil and that could be an indication that they've further refined their control system? Japan looks like a straight "L" requiring more control power than an uptip so maybe they're also onto a refined control system.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Don't standard foils top out at mid 40 kts? I believe that to go faster than that you need super vent or wedge ones or whatever they are called, but I don't know if they can support the weight. I don't know if this has been answered before but sorry if it's been hashed to death.

A standard foil that could open up its trailing edge to ventilate would be cool.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If a team could have a set of foils for each wind range they may encounter (With some overlap) that gives the quickest lift and fastest velocity .. then master the control seamlessly, then they would be fast ( in the lowest wind speed to foil. Under that the best hull shape wins)

If a team has one foil and adjustment configuration that foils the quickest and maintains the best velocity then even better ...

But, as we saw last time, the best config nearly lost!.... so.. the foils scope and limitations are governed by the sophistication of the controls and the ability of the crews to control them at near 100% efficiency.

Then there is the rudders. These are as important as the foils for fore and aft balance, steering, and overall boat handling.

The crew to control these foils best and control the wing sail in simpatico then only has a boat speed advantage and nothing more.

The crew that then picks the right combo of kit and then picks the best breeze and shifts is 90% there. The rest is reliability, good shore crew, and luck...

If they had taken the Cup with an 8-2 record, I suppose we never would have understood how good a boat OTUSA had.

The next 7 races were eye-openers for me.

2016, ACWS, NYC: NZ rolls the field, from worst to first, due to being in the right place at the right time. I'm not in a position to judge whether that was luck or skill. It's not as clear a case as the abandoned race. They did get the gust first and made the most of it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Teams will have a maximum of 4 AC dagger boards, but can they change it during the same day ? I could not find it in the prot or in the ACC rule.

Iirc the build-limits allow for some choices in the numbers mix of upper and lower foil sections built and tested, and then 4 main foils selected for the racing as you say. But it leaves open the (probably small?) possibility that lower sections, 'tips,' might be interchangeable; and if so then possibly even quickly enough that they could do it between races and without a boat liftout.

If they had taken the Cup with an 8-2 record, I suppose we never would have understood how good a boat OTUSA had.

The next 7 races were eye-openers for me.

2016, ACWS, NYC: NZ rolls the field, from worst to first, due to being in the right place at the right time. I'm not in a position to judge whether that was luck or skill. It's not as clear a case as the abandoned race. They did get the gust first and made the most of it.

If they'd caught a gust like that in 2013 ...

I guess that's sailing!

Given that it was rule changes that got us to the ridicuous situation where the best boat could not get around the course in the time given even though the conditions were well within those they were expected to race in I think we can safely rule "bad luck" out as the reason they lost that race...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Whether it was the panicky last minute 'safety first (but too late for the inept)' rule changes that not only reduced the mandated wind limits but changed how they would be measured, a failure to coordinate these changes with the course options, or just plain race mismanagement is probably arguable.

But whatever the reason for the screw up, starting a race in 'allowable conditions' but on a course that couldn't comfortably be completed in those minutely measured conditions, is either amatuerish beyond belief for the big noise, 'best of everything' AC, or a masterstroke by a 'very-interested-in-the-outcome' employee RO. Your call.

Two earlier races had been abandoned for too much wind. ETNZ was ahead in both.

OTUSA was willing to raise the wind limits.

TNZ was not willing to do so. Dean Barker said that in the press conference.

That's in the "Safety" segment that begins at 5:28.

Iain Murray seems to have been willing to raise the limit "a knot or two." 7:06--Gotta play by the rules that were mutually agreed.

Heading for the first mark: "A match race has broken out in a boat-speed contest."

23:34 -- Gary Jobson says at 3.5 minutes into the race, "Remember the 40-minute time limit." Kept repeating that. Didn't like the line that OTUSA took on the first downwind leg. Later: "Sailing low artificially let NZ get into breeze, and they escaped."

"Real boat-handling contest."

Gary Jobson -- on the referee's boat

Todd Harris -- Main? Asks Ken for explanations. Sailed only once in his life. Todd Harris is a play-by-play announcer for NBC Sports and the NBC Sports Network.

Jobson: "Happened to us in 1977 America's Cup. Four boat lengths from the finish line and missed the time limit."

Read: "ETNZ crushed the Italians in the LV Cup in similar conditions. Reading the wind well."

Mid-race, Jobson calculated that ETNZ was on pace to lose by a minute.

14 minutes before the end, Jobson: "There will definitely be another race today."

Read: "ETNZ are sailing faster."

Gate #3: "Two minutes behind the time limit."

4.5 miles left to do in 11 minutes = needed to be able to average 24.5 mph = 21.3 knots per hour

Read: "They have worked so hard and sailed such a good race!"

Davies didn't know that they were in danger of hitting the time limit. His calculations were off. When they had less than 3 minutes left, he said they had 6.

Read: "Sailed an amazingly good race."

Time expired before ETNZ rounded the final mark.

Commentators and Iain Murray agreed that the slow start probably made the difference. OTUSA hit the line first. Luffed ETNZ. But after the first gybe on the first leg, ETNZ was entirely free to sail their own race.

Read: "They were 4 or 5 minutes from finishing the race."

To my eye, the opening maneuvers didn't burn up that much time. It was certainly the best part of the race for OTUSA. After that, ETNZ was top dog.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This time limit race was a non issue. Dalton allowing a lay day may have been. But Barker was the problem on at least five occasions!.... but Dalton did not have a back up skipper!.... well! Actually he did but he compromised him. Ashby is a far better helmsman than Barker but they had to have a Kiwi!

But was there any discussion of why the course was not simply adjusted to the prevailing conditions, before or even during the race - standard procedure at YC's worldwide?

...and if not why not?

They showed a map of the bay with the boundaries for the courses lying inside Alcatraz.

They only said that the course could not be adjusted to be truly upwind and downwind.

They did not explain why.

Shipping lanes?

Keeping the finish line close to San Francisco?

They postponed the race for a few minutes to re-set the start line. It had become unfair in the last few minutes before the start--within 6 minutes of the start.

I never watched the LV race to which they compared this race. All they said was that ETNZ destroyed LR in "conditions like this." I don't know whether that was just about the light and shifty winds or about a cross-wind course.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

.............it leaves open the (probably small?) possibility that lower sections, 'tips,' might be interchangeable; and if so then possibly even quickly enough that they could do it between races and without a boat liftout.

...ooh,, let me be the first to name them..... QuiKtiPS

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

.............it leaves open the (probably small?) possibility that lower sections, 'tips,' might be interchangeable; and if so then possibly even quickly enough that they could do it between races and without a boat liftout.

...ooh,, let me be the first to name them..... QuiKtiPS

Regarding Race 13 above, once the wind did kick in the way they'd been expecting, wasn't there a second race on that same afternoon, a very good race?

Regarding Race 13 above, once the wind did kick in the way they'd been expecting, wasn't there a second race on that same afternoon, a very good race?

Yes. The abandoned race has no number; it was an attempt at "race 13." The real "race 13" was the second race that afternoon.

OTUSA won by 1 minute 23 seconds. It was the largest margin of victory in the finals. All the other deltas were under a minute.

Spithill missed the hook. ETNZ won the start. Read: "Dominant start." Jobson: "Brilliant." But OTUSA only 3 seconds behind at the first mark. The rest of the story from Wikipedia: "Team New Zealand were slightly ahead and tried to cross in front of Oracle who had the starboard tack advantage. Spithill had to evade the Kiwi boat, and gained a penalty for the infraction. With the boats still close heading into the leeward gate, Barker fluffed his lines, and Aotearoa ended up being forced to jibe twice in quick succession. Oracle sped away to begin the third leg leaving the Kiwis almost dead in the water. That was effectively the race, and Oracle confirmed their third point by 1:24 at the finish. The New Zealanders' largest defeat of the Cup to date brought the score to 3–8."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am confused by something. There seems to be some implied suggestion that the courses and time limits were set up to benefit OR and that IM was making changes for OR's benefit. It seems to me that the rules were agreed by both sides and therefore the rules were fair to both. At the time they were written, nobody knew which boat would be faster in what conditions. IM opposed OR's request for higher wind limits, as did ETNZ. So where's the real problem?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Regarding Race 13 above, once the wind did kick in the way they'd been expecting, wasn't there a second race on that same afternoon, a very good race?

Yes. The abandoned race has no number; it was an attempt at "race 13." The real "race 13" was the second race that afternoon.

OTUSA won by 1 minute 23 seconds. It was the largest margin of victory in the finals. All the other deltas were under a minute.

Spithill missed the hook. ETNZ won the start. Read: "Dominant start." Jobson: "Brilliant." But OTUSA only 3 seconds behind at the first mark. The rest of the story from Wikipedia: "Team New Zealand were slightly ahead and tried to cross in front of Oracle who had the starboard tack advantage. Spithill had to evade the Kiwi boat, and gained a penalty for the infraction. With the boats still close heading into the leeward gate, Barker fluffed his lines, and Aotearoa ended up being forced to jibe twice in quick succession. Oracle sped away to begin the third leg leaving the Kiwis almost dead in the water. That was effectively the race, and Oracle confirmed their third point by 1:24 at the finish. The New Zealanders' largest defeat of the Cup to date brought the score to 3–8."

Here is

.

FWIW, in this case, "the winning foils" were on OTUSA.

I think you hit the nail on the head . That two jibe maneuver at the bottom mark was the beginning of the end for ET . It was also the first time you could hear the " lady grinder " when they turned back upwind after being almost dead in the water .

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was IM's job to set a course that could be sailed within the time limit and specified wind strength .. he failed.

I believe you are incorrect on this and that you are pointing fingers at IM unreasonably.

The courses were decided by mutual consent and it was IM's job to run the racing. I believe all the teams had the right to comment and vote on both time limits and courses, yet it would seem that nobody considered that the courses might be too long for the lower wind limits. Therefore, to blame it on IM seems to me to be unreasonable. In addition, when the courses were agreed to, I don't think anybody knew for sure how long it would take to get around.

However, even if it was IM's job to set courses that could be sailed within the time limit, you fail to make any case as to why this favoured OR over ETNZ. Remember, nobody knew who would be faster in what conditions when courses and time limits were prescribed. It seems to me that some on here insist that IM made calls that only favoured OR, when it seems to me as a neutral that was not the case. He was against OR's request to raise wind limits, as was ETNZ. He supported LR's requests for lower wind limits when OR was only OK with them in an "appeasement" sort of way.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not my intention to accuse IM of favouring OR against ETNZ .. for whatever reason he failed to conduct a race in perfectly good conditions .. maybe you can blame TV. It is possible that no one thought of that situation but it was IM's job to think of it.

Down my club, if as race officer I ran a race with no means to shorten the course, with a time limit within which the course could not be completed but did not involve the breeze crapping out completely, I could expect to receive justified criticism.

I don't see why IM could not be expected to reach the standards of a club race officer and "nobody else thought of it" is not an excuse.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not my intention to accuse IM of favouring OR against ETNZ .. for whatever reason he failed to conduct a race in perfectly good conditions .. maybe you can blame TV. It is possible that no one thought of that situation but it was IM's job to think of it.

Blame???...FFS let's blame everybody but ETNZ for their loss.

Grow up!

ETNZ were to blame because...

While their design team was brilliant they exposed their foils to early. Even rod Davis admitted this!. Blame Dalton!

They chose a skipper with a questionable history, who crumbles under pressure, and poor winning record. Blame Dalton

They ran out of money at the ponty end of the regatta. Blame Dalton

They focussed on pie Warner's and beam fairings instead of continued foil development and foil control. Blame Dalton

They gave OR a lay day. Blame Dalton

They had Ashby as a winning cat skipper and made him mainsheet. Blame Dalton

They had Dalton on board.. blame yip you guessed it..

They sailed with the A sail attached when not needed. Blame Barker

Barker overruled ray Davies and cost two races. Blame Barker.

That never nailed the critical races and starts. Blame Barker

They did some dumb manoeuvres like those dumb gybe and that covering slam dunk. Blame Barker....

They ...

Christ you guys are one eyed. If the race management was biased why did ETNZ WIN ANY RACE?

THE MANGMENT OF ETNZ WAS ENEPT. THEY TOOK A WINNING BOAT, put a losing skipper in charge of it and never evolved it beyond pie Warner's and spin doctoring!

Dalton ran the ship with a iron fist. He fucked up. He removed people who opposed him. He even said he would step down!... while the money man is still there do not expect a winning campaign! He is a loser!

The only up side is the currentsailors on the boat. They are fucking good! But watch Dalton water them down!!!... but I hope not!?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was IM's job to set a course that could be sailed within the time limit and specified wind strength .. he failed.

I believe you are incorrect on this and that you are pointing fingers at IM unreasonably.

The courses were decided by mutual consent and it was IM's job to run the racing. I believe all the teams had the right to comment and vote on both time limits and courses, yet it would seem that nobody considered that the courses might be too long for the lower wind limits. Therefore, to blame it on IM seems to me to be unreasonable. In addition, when the courses were agreed to, I don't think anybody knew for sure how long it would take to get around.

However, even if it was IM's job to set courses that could be sailed within the time limit, you fail to make any case as to why this favoured OR over ETNZ. Remember, nobody knew who would be faster in what conditions when courses and time limits were prescribed. It seems to me that some on here insist that IM made calls that only favoured OR, when it seems to me as a neutral that was not the case. He was against OR's request to raise wind limits, as was ETNZ. He supported LR's requests for lower wind limits when OR was only OK with them in an "appeasement" sort of way.

More revisionism. If you are still going with the 'LR wanted them lower', you are simply repeating a fallacy that has been deliberatly used to excuse rule fiddling.

The final range of wind limits put forward by each team, after IM panicked and insisted on changes to the years old protocol (on which the boats design and systems had been predicated), threatening to cancel the racing (or to have the CG do it instead) if the teams refused changes - has been clarified and quoted here before.

The 'compromise' range IM then came up with, was lower than several teams (including LR) wanted, but closer to OTUSA's preference. But the numbers meant nothing anyway - once he went on to change the long agreed wind measurement protocol - effectively further lowering his 'compromise' numbers to match OTUSA's preferences.

Only one team had ever sailed in max wind speed (+) conditions - and gotten home safely.

Committee boat. OTUSA was getting it's arse kicked and delaying raceing was their only hope. Some races were 'postponed' in raceable conditions because IM decided on the RC boat that his 2 minute average, was fractionally below his target - whether this wind 'data' was transparent and available to the teams I don't know, but you could hear in his postponement announcements how casual and inexact it all sounded.

At that point ETNZ was understandably in full 'don't-change-anything-and-we'll-win' mode and was not questioning anything.

And if you don't recognise the rediculously compromised position IM put himself in, by having prenegotiated for his own YC to be the next COR (with himself to head the campaign!) -> should OTUSA win, you are failing to observe the very big grey thing in the room.

Mind you, there's some truth in the post immediatly above as well.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not my intention to accuse IM of favouring OR against ETNZ .. for whatever reason he failed to conduct a race in perfectly good conditions .. maybe you can blame TV. It is possible that no one thought of that situation but it was IM's job to think of it.

Blame???...FFS let's blame everybody but ETNZ for their loss.

Grow up!

ETNZ were to blame because...

While their design team was brilliant they exposed their foils to early. Even rod Davis admitted this!. Blame Dalton!

They chose a skipper with a questionable history, who crumbles under pressure, and poor winning record. Blame Dalton

They ran out of money at the ponty end of the regatta. Blame Dalton

They focussed on pie Warner's and beam fairings instead of continued foil development and foil control. Blame Dalton

They gave OR a lay day. Blame Dalton

They had Ashby as a winning cat skipper and made him mainsheet. Blame Dalton

They had Dalton on board.. blame yip you guessed it..

They sailed with the A sail attached when not needed. Blame Barker

Barker overruled ray Davies and cost two races. Blame Barker.

That never nailed the critical races and starts. Blame Barker

They did some dumb manoeuvres like those dumb gybe and that covering slam dunk. Blame Barker....

They ...

Christ you guys are one eyed. If the race management was biased why did ETNZ WIN ANY RACE?

THE MANGMENT OF ETNZ WAS ENEPT. THEY TOOK A WINNING BOAT, put a losing skipper in charge of it and never evolved it beyond pie Warner's and spin doctoring!

Dalton ran the ship with a iron fist. He fucked up. He removed people who opposed him. He even said he would step down!... while the money man is still there do not expect a winning campaign! He is a loser!

The only up side is the currentsailors on the boat. They are fucking good! But watch Dalton water them down!!!... but I hope not!?

What has that got to do with my post which clearly questions the competence of IM. My post has nothing to do with the reasons for ETNZ losing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not my intention to accuse IM of favouring OR against ETNZ .. for whatever reason he failed to conduct a race in perfectly good conditions .. maybe you can blame TV. It is possible that no one thought of that situation but it was IM's job to think of it.

Blame???...FFS let's blame everybody but ETNZ for their loss.

Grow up!

ETNZ were to blame because...

While their design team was brilliant they exposed their foils to early. Even rod Davis admitted this!. Blame Dalton!

They chose a skipper with a questionable history, who crumbles under pressure, and poor winning record. Blame Dalton

They ran out of money at the ponty end of the regatta. Blame Dalton

They focussed on pie Warner's and beam fairings instead of continued foil development and foil control. Blame Dalton

They gave OR a lay day. Blame Dalton

They had Ashby as a winning cat skipper and made him mainsheet. Blame Dalton

They had Dalton on board.. blame yip you guessed it..

They sailed with the A sail attached when not needed. Blame Barker

Barker overruled ray Davies and cost two races. Blame Barker.

That never nailed the critical races and starts. Blame Barker

They did some dumb manoeuvres like those dumb gybe and that covering slam dunk. Blame Barker....

They ...

Christ you guys are one eyed. If the race management was biased why did ETNZ WIN ANY RACE?

THE MANGMENT OF ETNZ WAS ENEPT. THEY TOOK A WINNING BOAT, put a losing skipper in charge of it and never evolved it beyond pie Warner's and spin doctoring!

Dalton ran the ship with a iron fist. He fucked up. He removed people who opposed him. He even said he would step down!... while the money man is still there do not expect a winning campaign! He is a loser!

The only up side is the currentsailors on the boat. They are fucking good! But watch Dalton water them down!!!... but I hope not!?

What has that got to do with my post which clearly questions the competence of IM. My post has nothing to do with the reasons for ETNZ losing.

No but you attribute blame to them... like most here you are in denial about the real reason for the loss and losses!

In order to grow you kiwis need to understand the real issues and attribute blame to the right parties and stop avoiding the real issues.

To continually blame Russell, IRM, OR, Larry,, Ian Murray.... just reeks of poor losers. FFS the race officers are not Yanks! They were Aussies and kiwis!

The reason kiwis keep failing at this is because of the issues I outlined above, and which you continue to ignore.

According to kiwis Dalton and Barker are winners!.... wrong!

The definition of stupidity is doing the same dumb thing, with the Same plan, and the same people.

Thats why OR and Bar will be winners. They challenge the norm and nobody is safe.

ETNZ is Team Dalton. So expect more of the same.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Down my club, if as race officer I ran a race with no means to shorten the course, with a time limit within which the course could not be completed but did not involve the breeze crapping out completely, I could expect to receive justified criticism.

I don't see why IM could not be expected to reach the standards of a club race officer and "nobody else thought of it" is not an excuse.

The 2 situations are very different. At your club, the race officer probably has a choice of a large number of courses and can shorten course, In the AC, the race officer runs the races in accordance with the rules and regulations agreed between the competitors. He has no authority to alter the courses or shorten the course.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not my intention to accuse IM of favouring OR against ETNZ .. for whatever reason he failed to conduct a race in perfectly good conditions .. maybe you can blame TV. It is possible that no one thought of that situation but it was IM's job to think of it.

Blame???...FFS let's blame everybody but ETNZ for their loss.

Grow up!

ETNZ were to blame because...

While their design team was brilliant they exposed their foils to early. Even rod Davis admitted this!. Blame Dalton!

They chose a skipper with a questionable history, who crumbles under pressure, and poor winning record. Blame Dalton

They ran out of money at the ponty end of the regatta. Blame Dalton

They focussed on pie Warner's and beam fairings instead of continued foil development and foil control. Blame Dalton

They gave OR a lay day. Blame Dalton

They had Ashby as a winning cat skipper and made him mainsheet. Blame Dalton

They had Dalton on board.. blame yip you guessed it..

They sailed with the A sail attached when not needed. Blame Barker

Barker overruled ray Davies and cost two races. Blame Barker.

That never nailed the critical races and starts. Blame Barker

They did some dumb manoeuvres like those dumb gybe and that covering slam dunk. Blame Barker....

They ...

Christ you guys are one eyed. If the race management was biased why did ETNZ WIN ANY RACE?

THE MANGMENT OF ETNZ WAS ENEPT. THEY TOOK A WINNING BOAT, put a losing skipper in charge of it and never evolved it beyond pie Warner's and spin doctoring!

Dalton ran the ship with a iron fist. He fucked up. He removed people who opposed him. He even said he would step down!... while the money man is still there do not expect a winning campaign! He is a loser!

The only up side is the currentsailors on the boat. They are fucking good! But watch Dalton water them down!!!... but I hope not!?

What has that got to do with my post which clearly questions the competence of IM. My post has nothing to do with the reasons for ETNZ losing.

Maybe Terry... the words " blame TV" is the reason!!!

Why blame anybody but ETNZ!!!

You and the other kiwis that "Blame storm" in this thread are bred from a Kiwi culture of always blaming others for your failures.

That why guys like Russell and Brad left the country.... and you still blame them for stealing the cup of you!!!!

Would you run a company with bosses that continually failed to reach the main target!?

Would you keep employing them to keep Failing for 16 years?

Would you pay them millions a year to do what they like with no accountability to the shareholders ( NZ public and sailors)

Would you allow them to discredit your fine name And sailing history... while taking the money?

Sure this is a business and the sponsors get their monies worth. But what is it doing to N Z sailors at your local clubs?

The only winners here are the overpaid team members, and a few suppliers and boat builders, and the sponsors.

For 16 years it has been a lost cause, disguised as NZ marketing opportunity for tourism, and done f all for your sailing numbers.

Same in the US, Italy, and Aussie ( but at least they knew when to say no!)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was IM's job to set a course that could be sailed within the time limit and specified wind strength .. he failed.

I believe you are incorrect on this and that you are pointing fingers at IM unreasonably.

The courses were decided by mutual consent and it was IM's job to run the racing. I believe all the teams had the right to comment and vote on both time limits and courses, yet it would seem that nobody considered that the courses might be too long for the lower wind limits. Therefore, to blame it on IM seems to me to be unreasonable. In addition, when the courses were agreed to, I don't think anybody knew for sure how long it would take to get around.

However, even if it was IM's job to set courses that could be sailed within the time limit, you fail to make any case as to why this favoured OR over ETNZ. Remember, nobody knew who would be faster in what conditions when courses and time limits were prescribed. It seems to me that some on here insist that IM made calls that only favoured OR, when it seems to me as a neutral that was not the case. He was against OR's request to raise wind limits, as was ETNZ. He supported LR's requests for lower wind limits when OR was only OK with them in an "appeasement" sort of way.

More revisionism. If you are still going with the 'LR wanted them lower', you are simply repeating a fallacy that has been deliberatly used to excuse rule fiddling.

The final range of wind limits put forward by each team, after IM panicked and insisted on changes to the years old protocol (on which the boats design and systems had been predicated), threatening to cancel the racing (or to have the CG do it instead) if the teams refused changes - has been clarified and quoted here before. Have you forgotten that LR refused to sail until they got their way and we had the farse of the first challenger race being held without them?

The 'compromise' range IM then came up with, was lower than several teams (including LR) wanted, but closer to OTUSA's preference. But the numbers meant nothing anyway - once he went on to change the long agreed wind measurement protocol - effectively further lowering his 'compromise' numbers to match OTUSA's preferences.

Only one team had ever sailed in max wind speed (+) conditions - and gotten home safely. Again, incorrect.LR was the team asking for the lowest wind limit. You also ignore the fact that OR later tried to get the wind limit raised but ETNZ refused.

Committee boat. OTUSA was getting it's arse kicked and delaying raceing was their only hope. Some races were 'postponed' in raceable conditions because IM decided on the RC boat that his 2 minute average, was fractionally below his target - whether this wind 'data' was transparent and available to the teams I don't know, but you could hear in his postponement announcements how casual and inexact it all sounded.

Wind data is one thing you cannot hide from anybody, because everybody can take their own readings. There were readings on the TV screen and the commentators I was listening to called it before the RC. I think to suggest there was anything amiss is pushing it, but I guess if you can't accept what happened, you will always look for excuses.

In the end, there were 2 boats on the course and the conditions were the same for both.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

24.3. By 31 January 2011, the Regatta Director, in consultation with the Event Authority, shallannounce the Racing Area at the Regatta Venue. The Regatta Director may amend theRacing Area with the approval of GGYC, the Challenger of Record and a majority of theCompetitor Forum.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was IM's job to set a course that could be sailed within the time limit and specified wind strength .. he failed.

I believe you are incorrect on this and that you are pointing fingers at IM unreasonably.

The courses were decided by mutual consent and it was IM's job to run the racing. I believe all the teams had the right to comment and vote on both time limits and courses, yet it would seem that nobody considered that the courses might be too long for the lower wind limits. Therefore, to blame it on IM seems to me to be unreasonable. In addition, when the courses were agreed to, I don't think anybody knew for sure how long it would take to get around.

However, even if it was IM's job to set courses that could be sailed within the time limit, you fail to make any case as to why this favoured OR over ETNZ. Remember, nobody knew who would be faster in what conditions when courses and time limits were prescribed. It seems to me that some on here insist that IM made calls that only favoured OR, when it seems to me as a neutral that was not the case. He was against OR's request to raise wind limits, as was ETNZ. He supported LR's requests for lower wind limits when OR was only OK with them in an "appeasement" sort of way.

More revisionism. If you are still going with the 'LR wanted them lower', you are simply repeating a fallacy that has been deliberatly used to excuse rule fiddling.

The final range of wind limits put forward by each team, after IM panicked and insisted on changes to the years old protocol (on which the boats design and systems had been predicated), threatening to cancel the racing (or to have the CG do it instead) if the teams refused changes - has been clarified and quoted here before. Have you forgotten that LR refused to sail until they got their way and we had the farse of the first challenger race being held without them?

Irrelevant.

The 'compromise' range IM then came up with, was lower than several teams (including LR) wanted, but closer to OTUSA's preference. But the numbers meant nothing anyway - once he went on to change the long agreed wind measurement protocol - effectively further lowering his 'compromise' numbers to match OTUSA's preferences.

Only one team had ever sailed in max wind speed (+) conditions - and gotten home safely. Again, incorrect.LR was the team asking for the lowest wind limit. You also ignore the fact that OR later tried to get the wind limit raised but ETNZ refused.

- No they did not, this is a conveniant 1/2 truth repeated by the west coast mafia/Oracle fan boys for people like you to swallow because it disguises the fact that OTUSA and their side kick AR wanted to change the limits and wanted the lowest limits - which IM duely provided. PB flipped out and said all sorts of things after the death of AS. His team then came up with more thoughtful proposals and it was these that were put on the table for consideration. ETNZ saw no reason to change at all, but were forced (as mentioned above) into proposing something.

I chose not to mention the fact that Jimmy facetiously suggested raising the limits again once he had his confidence back, because it's another red-herring and the fact that ETNZ told them where to shove the idea is hardly surprising. It's the same idea of sportmanship (or the lack of it) that induced LR to shelve a muti-million dollar 8 year plan when the rules were shagged around with again this time.

Committee boat. OTUSA was getting it's arse kicked and delaying raceing was their only hope. Some races were 'postponed' in raceable conditions because IM decided on the RC boat that his 2 minute average, was fractionally below his target - whether this wind 'data' was transparent and available to the teams I don't know, but you could hear in his postponement announcements how casual and inexact it all sounded.

Wind data is one thing you cannot hide from anybody, because everybody can take their own readings. There were readings on the TV screen and the commentators I was listening to called it before the RC. I think to suggest there was anything amiss is pushing it, but I guess if you can't accept what happened, you will always look for excuses.

- You have no idea - the wind data could only be taken from up the mast of the RC boat and no where else. It was minutely measured and it was very easy for an interested party to look for a 2 minute average that 'suited' them. So even if the data was open - the determination, if marginal, still lay in IM's hands.

I spoke of the potential impact of the changes being made both openly, to the wind limit and those that were made seemingly more quietly to the measurement protocol, - before the Match began.

In the end, there were 2 boats on the course and the conditions were the same for both.

- Right - but one was designed for a full spectrum of conditions as per the protocol, the other maybe not. Oracle has managed to overide their own Protocol in both of the AC34 & AC35 now.

I see you don't have anything to say about IM's obvious conflict of interests.

No need for excuses - but even a few tiny tweaks by a non-nuetral official can easily decide the outcome of an event, one more race strarted on time, one more race on a course that could be finished in the conditions and it would have been a drubbing of proven cheats - and the 'excuses' would be coming from somewhere else. Neither side was perfect - but only one was sharing resources and in bed (so to speak) with the race officials. Just calling it as I saw it, rather than as it's being spun.

The original plan was to have marks that were mobile and manned, not only with race officers, but also with photographers and VIP's. After Russell almost took out the start boat in the ACWS against Jimmy, the powers that be chose to move to fixed marks. When they did this they did not account for in the lower wind range the course was no longer being completable. Since the races were to be completed within the time contraints of television, there should have been a short and a long mark option. But, no one petitioned for this option. I don't believe it was a conspiracy. It was an over sight.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not my intention to accuse IM of favouring OR against ETNZ .. for whatever reason he failed to conduct a race in perfectly good conditions .. maybe you can blame TV. It is possible that no one thought of that situation but it was IM's job to think of it.

Blame???...FFS let's blame everybody but ETNZ for their loss.

Grow up!

ETNZ were to blame because...

What has that got to do with my post which clearly questions the competence of IM. My post has nothing to do with the reasons for ETNZ losing.

Maybe Terry... the words " blame TV" is the reason!!!

Why blame anybody but ETNZ!!!

You are still completely missing the point .. I made no comment about ETNZ losing the series .. my post was about what I consider were bad decisions by IM .. my remark about "blame TV" was a possible reason for his bad decisions.

As for repeating the same stuff over and over again I suggest you look in the mirror.

Down my club, if as race officer I ran a race with no means to shorten the course, with a time limit within which the course could not be completed but did not involve the breeze crapping out completely, I could expect to receive justified criticism.

I don't see why IM could not be expected to reach the standards of a club race officer and "nobody else thought of it" is not an excuse.

The 2 situations are very different. At your club, the race officer probably has a choice of a large number of courses and can shorten course, In the AC, the race officer runs the races in accordance with the rules and regulations agreed between the competitors. He has no authority to alter the courses or shorten the course.

It is absolutely clear that in AC34 IM wasn't a helpless victim of the "rules and regulations" but played a significant part in framing them. In those circumstances, to put himself in the position of being unable to shorten course was inept.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The original plan was to have marks that were mobile and manned, not only with race officers, but also with photographers and VIP's. After Russell almost took out the start boat in the ACWS against Jimmy, the powers that be chose to move to fixed marks. When they did this they did not account for in the lower wind range the course was no longer being completable. Since the races were to be completed within the time contraints of television, there should have been a short and a long mark option. But, no one petitioned for this option. I don't believe it was a conspiracy. It was an over sight.

The fixed marks did not prevent the use mobile of ones and a shorter course during light wind conditions.

If article 24.3 is the one appliable for this case, it is not up to the teams to ask for it but to the RD to propose it to the teams.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not my intention to accuse IM of favouring OR against ETNZ .. for whatever reason he failed to conduct a race in perfectly good conditions .. maybe you can blame TV. It is possible that no one thought of that situation but it was IM's job to think of it.

Blame???...FFS let's blame everybody but ETNZ for their loss.

Grow up!

ETNZ were to blame because...

What has that got to do with my post which clearly questions the competence of IM. My post has nothing to do with the reasons for ETNZ losing.

Maybe Terry... the words " blame TV" is the reason!!!

Why blame anybody but ETNZ!!!

You are still completely missing the point .. I made no comment about ETNZ losing the series .. my post was about what I consider were bad decisions by IM .. my remark about "blame TV" was a possible reason for his bad decisions.

As for repeating the same stuff over and over again I suggest you look in the mirror.

Terry where did I say you repeated your self?

And I say bullshit!...

You and the other kiwis constantly refers to these issues as a reason for ETNZ losing in this race and the AC.... among other thing

Read what you right again!

This one race was never a issue for anyone except a few idiots here.

No one thing ever mentioned in this whole AC thread was to blame. NOT ONE THING!

IT WAS A SERIES OF BAD MISTAKES ALL MADE BY ETNZ management! They agreed to the rules!

To put yours and the Kiwis bullshit myopic Blame storming into perspective...

Show me one time in the last AC where, despite being under the pump,Jimmys and Russell once blamed anything or anybody!!!

From the broken boat to the cheating allegations to the series of losses they remained positive, happy, and focussed.

I am sure if OR had lost they would have looked inwardly and never blamed anybody else.

Then look at Barker when he started losing. He was a broken man. Then look at Dalton he went missing in action. Russell Jimmy would never act like that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What I find strange is that, if the prot allows a race with a minimum of 5 kts wind, they organize a race course where you need 10 kts to finish in time.

72' Archimedean cats would have finished within the time limit no problem. Foilers below their lift-off threshold not so much. The gamble ETNZ made when they went to full foiling (against the intent of the rule) was that the light wind weakness would not be a liability in windy SF bay. Sadly for them, it was - in the last race they could have won before OR completely outclassed them on every level and kicked their ass.

It's a bit rich to try to blame the rules (which predate the start of the regatta), tho. Not to mention pathetic.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What I find strange is that, if the prot allows a race with a minimum of 5 kts wind, they organize a race course where you need 10 kts to finish in time.

72' Archimedean cats would have finished within the time limit no problem. Foilers below their lift-off threshold not so much. The gamble ETNZ made when they went to full foiling (against the intent of the rule) was that the light wind weakness would not be a liability in windy SF bay. Sadly for them, it was - in the last race they could have won before OR completely outclassed them on every level and kicked their ass.

It's a bit rich to try to blame the rules (which predate the start of the regatta), tho. Not to mention pathetic.

The initial wind limits were 3 to 33 kts. NZ engineers did very well designing an allround boat, faster in light wind and safer in high winds.

IM did very eliminating all races where the kiwis should have won, giving time to OR to have a faster boat.

TNZ mistakes were mainly not to fight those decisions, perhaps a problem of lawyers, or because of overconfidence. I remember my questions and interrogation on the forum at the time, a NZ poster, Indio, replied: "we don't need that to win".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What I find strange is that, if the prot allows a race with a minimum of 5 kts wind, they organize a race course where you need 10 kts to finish in time.

72' Archimedean cats would have finished within the time limit no problem. Foilers below their lift-off threshold not so much. The gamble ETNZ made when they went to full foiling (against the intent of the rule) was that the light wind weakness would not be a liability in windy SF bay. Sadly for them, it was - in the last race they could have won before OR completely outclassed them on every level and kicked their ass.

It's a bit rich to try to blame the rules (which predate the start of the regatta), tho. Not to mention pathetic.

true but they had plenty of other races they could have won! This one race did not lose the AC for ETNZ.it timing was unfortunate that's all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Because ETNZ did not lose due to foils! Or one race, or one tack!... that's why the thread spun wildly out of control into logic and reality!... then there are the Kiwi lovers perspectives!... dreamers!

I think they almost certainly lost because of foils. OR had better foils - it just took them time to dial the boat in to take advantage of them. They also continued developing their foils during the match itself.

Foils will also be a significant factor in the next cup, I suspect being as important as control systems. While I doubt great control systems will make average foils into winners, i think that poor control systems will make great foils into average performers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ETNZs foils and control system were faster than ORs for more than half the finals. They also had a 2 Zip lead before race one!

Sure ORs foils were a faster design but it's the package of design, controller, and humans that make the winning foils/ boat.

NZ had a better package for more of the regatta than OR! Where NZ went wrong was losing two races when they had the advantage of a better package.

I blame Barker for the sailing issues and Dalton for choosing Barker! Also Dalton let his design team fuck about with stupid kit like pie Warner's and beam fairing... when foil control and design was going to always be the area of most progression.

Seems to me that Oracles foils were great in 34 but, initially their control system wasn't. When they got the control system(and a few other things) dialed in they took off. That points to the value of the control system and they won't forget that lesson this time around.

Seems to me that Oracles foils were great in 34 but, initially their control system wasn't. When they got the control system(and a few other things) dialed in they took off. That points to the value of the control system and they won't forget that lesson this time around.

All through the regatta, OTUSA talked about "modes." While Kostecki was on board, I heard him say several times, "Good mode, good mode."

When we were discussing "beast mode," I was interpreting it from the standpoint of Marshawn Lynch, who played for the Buffalo Bills (my home town) and the Seattle Seahawks.

In that context, I guess it meant something like, "Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead!" But that is a woefully inadequate understanding of what OTUSA meant by "mode."

The commentators, the packages about how sailboats sail, and a few summary stat graphics that were used in the later races taught me that a "mode" is a set of selections from a series of tradeoffs, a whole package of decisions about how to sail the boat: maximum boat speed vs. maximum vmg; lift vs. drag for both foils and wings; shortest course vs. fastest way around the circuit; optimum use of human power.

Besides "Good mode, good mode," I heard Ainsley call for "normal mode" once. And, of course, his famous cry on the last beat: "OK, go guys, this is it, this is it. Work your asses off!"

The point is that "beast mode" was not just "put your whole heart and soul into it now." It was a lot of subtle elements working together that took bursts of maximum effort from the grinders to achieve.

There are a lot of things going on in these boats that we video viewers just can't see: the (hotly debated) nature of the hydraulic controls; the foil trim decisions in various modes; the shape of the sail's elements; the art of pumping the trailing edge during tacks; the distribution of the power from the grinding stations; communications among the team members; strategy and tactics; and probably lots of other things as well (trimming the jib?).

It is an immensely complex system.

I was deeply intrigued by the winged-keel controversy in 1983. That part of the story was literally "shrouded" in mystery in 1983. If "Sailing Anarchy" had existed back then, there would have been lots of debates about whether that single component made the difference in the decisive come-from-behind victory on the next-to-last leg of the last race, which included "47 grueling tacks." I've heard different theories.

Be that as it may, today's systems are vastly more complex. It's fun to watch and fun to think about the meaning of what we have seen--to my taste. I understand that tastes differ, and I can sympathize with those who think that that kind of tacking duel is what "real" America's Cup racing was all about in the past and should be again in the future.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So the light wind heat that was abandoned comes down to bad math. They knew the distance and speed and didn't bother to find out, using math, that finishing with in the time limit would be a crap shoot. You have 2 teams spending serious coin to launch their boats and compete for the cup basically wasting time because no one did the math ahead of time, or they shaved it way too close.

The AR design team did bad math and created a sub strength platform which set a whole chain of events into motion.

mistakes were made and other mistakes may be made next time, but hopefully not the same mistakes.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So the light wind heat that was abandoned comes down to bad math. They knew the distance and speed and didn't bother to find out, using math, that finishing with in the time limit would be a crap shoot. You have 2 teams spending serious coin to launch their boats and compete for the cup basically wasting time because no one did the math ahead of time, or they shaved it way too close.

The AR design team did bad math and created a sub strength platform which set a whole chain of events into motion.

mistakes were made and other mistakes may be made next time, but hopefully not the same mistakes.

The wind almost, almost filled in nicely on time. By the time they started the re-run of Race 13 (that same afternoon) it had filled in better, DB nailed the start, led at Mark 1, and the race was a great one. The score was now 8-3.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So the light wind heat that was abandoned comes down to bad math. They knew the distance and speed and didn't bother to find out, using math, that finishing with in the time limit would be a crap shoot. You have 2 teams spending serious coin to launch their boats and compete for the cup basically wasting time because no one did the math ahead of time, or they shaved it way too close.

The AR design team did bad math and created a sub strength platform which set a whole chain of events into motion.

mistakes were made and other mistakes may be made next time, but hopefully not the same mistakes.

FFS.... how can you do maths on wind velocity!!!...

Do you think they should have pulled out of the race, or abandoned, or postponed the race because the math calculation, based on a boat speed that is determined by wind speed, would mean they would not finish!!!?

What say the breeze had increased by 2 knots for Seven minutes during the race!!!

Share on other sites

Sorry Doug - like you I tried to bring the topic back to "the winning foils". Instead I'll now go with the flow.

Carbo, I tend to agee with you here. It is entirely possible that the wind could have increased during the race and that may have made all the difference (of course, we'll never know), so even if ETNZ had "done the math" it could have been irrelevant.

On the other hand, I think it was Ray Davies who stated afterwards that they were not aware of a time limit so they didn't try to beat the clock, focussing instead on beating OTUSA.

Anyway, it's over now and kudos to OTUSA for the greatest comeback in my version of history.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The same dudes in the AC thread need to give it a rest!... they bag others for backing their stance but the likes of nav, doug lord, stingray, aclarke,.... have ranted for months on bullshit that are either historical, or irrelevant to the outcome of the last AC. Individually they account for nothing!

That why I inject some alternative comment and realism to the diatribe / dribble!

The Barker lovers need to get out of lala land. Even Dalton could see he was not never going to win!... and no helmsman with a good losing record ever won the AC after changing teams. Not Barker, Davis, Dickson, cayard, ....

Yes, it may have been a helm or crew error that caused the problem, brought on by OTUSA's speed and the development of their afterguard.

But once they were up in the air, DB diagnosed the problem and stuck with the helm through the recovery: "Hydro! Hydro! Hydro! Keep going! Hydro!"

Everyone makes mistakes.

Not everyone recovers from them.

In the live commentary, Ken Read said that ETNZ's wing didn't have the hydraulics necessary to pop the wing.

Jobson thought that ETNZ had the right of way. That was probably when the initiated the maneuver. Once they clobbered the tack, I guess they failed to keep clear (understandably!) and got the boat-on-boat penalty.

If the tack had worked, could they have won the race and gone up 7 to -1 in points? Beats me.

I would love to hear what DB and the crew thought about the call for and the execution of that maneuver. They took 2 of the next 3 races to reach 8-1, so it may well have been a winnable race for them.

At 8-1, Ainsley & Co. were 1-4. Then, of course, they went 8-0 for the rest of the regatta.

I haven't seen a race-by-race analysis of when OTUSA fixed its rudder foil.

The T-foils on Oracle’s rudders were found to be cavitating at speed which caused drag and reduced the lift of the foil. The bubble was developing at the intersection of the vertical rudder and horizontal foil, towards the after end. To reduce this a filet was added.

But I’m also hearing that a nose cone type device was also fitted to the forward end of the rudder foil intersection to move the pressure distribution, much like the bulbous bow on a ship.

While the modifications may have reduced the drag of the rudder, there may well have been an improvement in the trim of the boat too. With more efficient lift at the back, it may have been possible to reduce the angle of attack of the main foils, reducing drag further.

...

Asymmetric set up

I’m told that the boat was set up asymmetrically, possibly with a bit more angle of attack on the starboard daggerboard. This improved the boat’s performance on port tack, allowing the crew to put the bows down, go for more speed, pop up onto the foils, increasing speed as the drag reduced and yet still maintain the same true wind angle on port.

On starboard the boat performed less well, but with the breeze cranked around more to the left, there was more port tack action than starboard.

When they were sailing downwind on starboard, the boat sailed deeper for the same speed as the foil hauled the boat to leeward making a better VMG downwind. Again with left hand breeze there was more starboard tack than port.

Along with these invisible changes to the foils and trim, anticipating prevailing winds is another one of the hidden variables in the system that doesn't show up on video.

Sheehan makes three more points about foils in the article: the design of the hydraulics to give OTUSA "fixed settings" on the main foils; shallower, less curved foils with perhaps "lower drag from the reduced wetted surface area; a big change in the rudder during the lay day.

Here again, it would be great to get a full account from an insider about ALL of the changes made to the foils themselves as well as the changes in the USE of the foils. I don't have a lot of hope of living long enough to read such stories. So long as foiling catamarans are in play for the Cup, I suppose that the teams are not going to answer all of the questions we have for them.

I didn't log the appearance of graphics in the later race replays used by the commentators, but they showed that OTUSA often sailed a longer distance than ETNZ in those races, with only a small difference in boat speed overall. Small differences made a big difference at the end. OTUSA was able to come from behind and stay out in front when it counted.

Yes, it may have been a helm or crew error that caused the problem, brought on by OTUSA's speed and the development of their afterguard.

But once they were up in the air, DB diagnosed the problem and stuck with the helm through the recovery: "Hydro! Hydro! Hydro! Keep going! Hydro!"

Everyone makes mistakes.

Not everyone recovers from them.

In the live commentary, Ken Read said that ETNZ's wing didn't have the hydraulics necessary to pop the wing.

Jobson thought that ETNZ had the right of way. That was probably when the initiated the maneuver. Once they clobbered the tack, I guess they failed to keep clear (understandably!) and got the boat-on-boat penalty.

If the tack had worked, could they have won the race and gone up 7 to -1 in points? Beats me.

I would love to hear what DB and the crew thought about the call for and the execution of that maneuver. They took 2 of the next 3 races to reach 8-1, so it may well have been a winnable race for them.

At 8-1, Ainsley & Co. were 1-4. Then, of course, they went 8-0 for the rest of the regatta.

I haven't seen a race-by-race analysis of when OTUSA fixed its rudder foil.

The T-foils on Oracle’s rudders were found to be cavitating at speed which caused drag and reduced the lift of the foil. The bubble was developing at the intersection of the vertical rudder and horizontal foil, towards the after end. To reduce this a filet was added.

But I’m also hearing that a nose cone type device was also fitted to the forward end of the rudder foil intersection to move the pressure distribution, much like the bulbous bow on a ship.

While the modifications may have reduced the drag of the rudder, there may well have been an improvement in the trim of the boat too. With more efficient lift at the back, it may have been possible to reduce the angle of attack of the main foils, reducing drag further.

...

Asymmetric set up

I’m told that the boat was set up asymmetrically, possibly with a bit more angle of attack on the starboard daggerboard. This improved the boat’s performance on port tack, allowing the crew to put the bows down, go for more speed, pop up onto the foils, increasing speed as the drag reduced and yet still maintain the same true wind angle on port.

On starboard the boat performed less well, but with the breeze cranked around more to the left, there was more port tack action than starboard.

When they were sailing downwind on starboard, the boat sailed deeper for the same speed as the foil hauled the boat to leeward making a better VMG downwind. Again with left hand breeze there was more starboard tack than port.

Along with these invisible changes to the foils and trim, anticipating prevailing winds is another one of the hidden variables in the system that doesn't show up on video.

Sheehan makes three more points about foils in the article: the design of the hydraulics to give OTUSA "fixed settings" on the main foils; shallower, less curved foils with perhaps "lower drag from the reduced wetted surface area; a big change in the rudder during the lay day.

Here again, it would be great to get a full account from an insider about ALL of the changes made to the foils themselves as well as the changes in the USE of the foils. I don't have a lot of hope of living long enough to read such stories. So long as foiling catamarans are in play for the Cup, I suppose that the teams are not going to answer all of the questions we have for them.

I didn't log the appearance of graphics in the later race replays used by the commentators, but they showed that OTUSA often sailed a longer distance than ETNZ in those races, with only a small difference in boat speed overall. Small differences made a big difference at the end. OTUSA was able to come from behind and stay out in front when it counted.

Martin. It's easy to say Barker May have saved the capsize?... but as skipper he should never have let the boat get in the situation in the fist instance. As a leader he is weak in mind and spirit.

He also was not a leader when change was needed. He has never had the balls to challenge people. If Dalton and rod Davis said ''keep doing the same thing"" then Dean should have challenged that. I am sure Jimmy challenged Russ, just like Russ challenged Jimmy. Russ new when to change!.. weather it was kit or personal he made the calls. And they were winning calls!... what calldids and Dalton make when required???... to share a bed with...?... to get of the boat?...

There is a huge and winning difference between the culture and management of. ETNZ and ORTUSA

These guys are pro'sat the top end of the sport. Mistakes are not an option.

There is a huge and winning difference between the culture and management of ETNZ and ORTUSA

Fair enough.

In the end, my team beat their team.

I'm not unhappy about that.

These guys are pro's at the top end of the sport. Mistakes are not an option.

And yet the best of the best DO make mistakes.

I've done a lot of browsing the last few days.

I found an article or post where Ray Davies said that he wasn't aware of the time limits during the abandoned race until it was too late. If they'd started racing the clock sooner, maybe the result would have been different. The commentators were talking about it six minutes into the race. I can't find the quote now. This from DB:

Barker had no complaints about the time limit. “It would have been nice to have another 10 minutes ….but it’s there for a purpose – television schedules – and we can live with that.

“We became aware half-way down the run that we were not going to make the finish in time. We had put a lot into the race. We were so close – and so far away but cry or laugh we just have to get on with it.

“Now we have to make sure we’re on our game tomorrow.”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In the wider public's opinion the comeback will always have an * next to it due the cheating allegations. I don't think Oracle cheated but as they have a history of cheating the mud flung will always stick to some degree.

Getting back to the foils, interesting to read in jacks newsletter that team japan may have the fasted T in bermuda currently. It makes me wonder since they are using a design package from oracle that maybe Nick Holroyd has brought some ideas that have given TJ an edge. If ETNZ have been working on foil design since the AC34 as they claim then Nick would have brought that intellectual property with him. TJ and Oracle seem to have a close working relationship so I'm sure that information will be passed on.

The wing was a big plus for OTUSA. Simpler, lighter wing, proved to be tunable. No main element twist. Nice twist control system.

ETNZ always way ahead on board geometry.

OTUSA had thinner, smaller boards, higher stress. Big test rig to pre-test boards before they went in the boat.

OTUSA: slick board control system.

An approximate transcript of the next section:

"Not much doubt that the primary factor in the outcome was improved upwind performance due to the moding of the wing. The boat always had a lot of lee helm, which is not a good thing, and indicated an imbalance in the boat. ... There were ways to tune the wing to shift the center of effort aft and down.

"The downside of it was that the winch loads climbed through the roof.

"The crew had already rejected the odd testing we had done with that because it meant that they had to drop down to a higher ratio of gear to handle the load. The trimmer himself had his work cut out. Lot of wraps on the drum for the main traveler sheet. It had been put aside during the during early days, but when it was obvious we were behind the eight ball, we just got into it and made it work.

"The crew were grinding slower, but the load shifted aft, the lee helm went away, and the boat just lit up upwind."

So, in his account, it was the reconfiguration of the wing that put the heaviest burden on the grinders going upwind, not the rate at which trim changes were made either of the wing or the foils.

I suppose that an aft center of pressure has more leverage against the trim controls than one that is further forward.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The T-foils on Oracle’s rudders were found to be cavitating at speed which caused drag and reduced the lift of the foil. The bubble was developing at the intersection of the vertical rudder and horizontal foil, towards the after end. To reduce this a filet was added.

But I’m also hearing that a nose cone type device was also fitted to the forward end of the rudder foil intersection to move the pressure distribution, much like the bulbous bow on a ship.

While the modifications may have reduced the drag of the rudder, there may well have been an improvement in the trim of the boat too. With more efficient lift at the back, it may have been possible to reduce the angle of attack of the main foils, reducing drag further.

This description of the change in rudder design is either a smoke screen or deliberately avoids what was really going on. Yes, what is said is about cavitation is correct, but it misses the real benefits, because at upwind speeds, there was absolutely zero cavitation. However, it has long been known that the T junction is a significant generator of drag, which is why Moths have had similar bulges at that point for many years. The biggest benefit to OR was that simple drag reduction, which would have helped it foil earlier. It is interesting to note that OR actually lost some of its downwind top speed as the regatta went on, as they favoured upwind pace.

But again, to focus on the rudder changes misses all the less obvious changes that few talk about. For me, one of the big ones in terms of upwind foiling was a modification to the transom, creating a downwards ramp over the last little bit of the run after. This works in a similar way to a Gurney flap and tricks the water into thinking it is still going along the hull, reducing turbulence off the transom.

Instead of looking for big gains, people should focus on all the little ones because, as I keep saying, it doesn't actually take a big gain in order to start upwind foiling. We are probably only looking for gains that produce, say, 1 knot of extra speed, because that is probably all that was needed to get up and flying. The act of foiling itself produced the huge speed gain. We see this all the time in foiling classes. It only takes a very little bit of extra speed to lift off and then you are gone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

An that is why the wing is more important the the foils. The wing is the only thing that will give you the extra knot.

It's a bit like a motor in a F1. More HP means the aero package can be designed to give more traction on the road.

The wing gives the speed for the foil to lift.

I said this year's ago! The foils are limited to lift v drag v control in water the wings are huge and have more parts to the equation and thus more scope for development. More power means the foils can be designed to lift earlier and longer.

The big problem is staying on the foil, in breeze fluctuations upwind, while maintaining good height / VMG